I posted about Rush Limbaugh and the money laundering laws recently, and now I see that Mark Kleiman offers a thoughtful analysis of the whole issue. (Via The Modulator.)

I really suggest reading it in its entirety, but here's his conclusion:

The sad story of Limbaugh's drug addiction wouldn't be a total loss if it helped his fans and political allies rethink their position toward drug addicts in general. Noticing that they aren't actually willing to apply the principles of tough love and zero tolerance to someone they care about, they might start to wonder whether those principles are really the ones we ought to be applying to drug addicts who aren't famous or rich or well-connected. Instead, they've just gone into denial about the fact that Limbaugh's case strongly resembles the case of other drug abusers.

Criminalization of the financing of one's appetites (the shifting of sums large enough to pay for large appetites) flows naturally from the criminalization of the appetites themselves. If an appetite is immoral, then so is paying for it. And so is the money!

We're still close enough to Thanksgiving that I guess I should be grateful that the government doesn't go the way of the Khmer Rouge, and punish appetite itself.

After awhile, such "morality" creates its own appetite.